Farmers vs. Putnam County Decision Expected Soon

On Friday, oral arguments began in what has become a high-profile legal battle between Ridge Ranch, a family-owned farm in Patterson, and the Putnam County government. I was in the courtroom to witness the proceedings firsthand — and it was illuminating.

At the center of the case is an “Article 78” petition filed by Dr. Dan and Arielle Honovich, who allege that Putnam County improperly excluded their farm from New York State’s Agricultural District. If true, this could signal broader concerns about how the county is handling farm protections.

This legal action follows months of public attention, sparked when I first reported on the issues in early March. Since then, the issue has gained traction across the county — with local farmers, town supervisors, and legislators weighing in.

Tensions hit a fever pitch when Patterson Town Supervisor Rich Williams wrote and posted an incendiary letter, ostensibly from the full town board, making an absurd hypothetical comparison to fictional marijuana dispensaries surrounded by razor wire popping up in residential neighborhoods.

These are not serious concerns as it pertains to Ridge Ranch, and these concerns are not being made by serious people, as it applies to the case at hand.

Though he didn’t name Ridge Ranch, the implication was clear: seemingly, they were the target. For the record, the Honovich family raises cattle — not cannabis — and there has never been any mention of marijuana in relation to their farm, neither now, or in the future.

Interestingly, while the letter was posted in multiple places including multiple local newspapers, and was said to be from the Patterson Town Board, sources in Patterson have since indicated that not all board members may have even been aware the letter was being sent to the Putnam County Legislature, or to be posted to Supervisor Rich Williams’ Facebook page, raising further questions about how the issue is being handled behind closed doors.

But on Friday, political rhetoric gave way to legal reasoning — where facts, not fearmongering, rule the day. In a courtroom, only truth and facts matter, and only serious people get to make the case.

Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.

Subscribe to 1440 today.

Presiding over the case was Hon. Victor Grossman, joined by his law clerk. Each side was given uninterrupted time to present arguments, with only the judge and clerk permitted to ask clarifying questions. It’s important to note: questions from the bench don’t necessarily indicate how the judge will rule.

The Honovich’s attorney presented first, arguing that Ridge Ranch was unfairly denied entry into the Agricultural District due to the county’s improper use of Resolution #139.

Adopted by the Putnam County Legislature in 2007, Resolution #139 is a local policy that imposes an additional requirement on farms applying for inclusion in the state Agricultural District: that at least 50% of the soil on the property be classified as “prime agricultural soil.”

In this case, “prime farm land soil” refers to topography and drainage. In Putnam County, only 4-8% of all land would meet that requirement.

This requirement, however, is not found in New York State’s Agriculture and Markets Law for Ag District eligibility. In fact, that soil quality threshold is only referenced in state law as a condition for receiving certain agricultural tax exemptions — a completely separate program, and for the growing of crops, not something being done at Ridge Ranch.

Despite that, Putnam County’s Soil & Water Conservation District Manager (Neal Tomann) has used Resolution #139 as part of the justification to deny every farm that applied for Ag District inclusion during the 2023 review cycle — including Ridge Ranch.

The Honovichs’ attorney argued that Resolution #139 is an unlawful local barrier that contradicts state policy and imposes requirements the state never intended.

Additionally, the court noted that specific to this case involving the Honovich’s before the court, and their application for Ag district inclusion, tax exemptions were never a part of it, and are irrelevant to the case at hand.

Judge Grossman and his clerk seemed to treat these as questions of fact, indicating that the court acknowledges the state’s position on the issue.

When it was the county’s turn, its attorney repeatedly returned to Resolution #139, attempting to defend the soil requirement. But Judge Grossman reminded them — firmly and repeatedly — that the statute they were referencing pertains only to tax exemptions and has no bearing on Agricultural District eligibility.

This soil requirement was used by Mr. Tomann in his guidance to the Putnam County Legislature, telling them that the law is clear, the state requires 50% prime farm land soil for any farm seeking consideration.

Tomann further said to the Legislature, that to ignore this would be a violation of New York State Law, something New York State directly contradicts, stating it has no criteria for soil types as a requirement for Ag District inclusion.

The court’s language in questioning the county attorney on this was not merely inquisitive but clarifying, signaling some degree of frustration with the county’s legal framing.

This forced the county to pivot away from 139 as being the only reason Ridge Ranch was denied. However, as the court noted, no other reason was given in the record (provided by the county) by the Legislature. The county attorney then asked the court to make assumptions about what the Legislature must have been thinking beyond 139.

The court reminded council that it cannot make assumptions about a person’s state of mind, but only what is in the record as a matter of fact.

Further complicating the county’s argument was the court’s citation of Article XIV, Section 4 of the New York State Constitution, which explicitly protects agriculture and farming. This raises the question of whether the county’s actions, and Resolution #139 itself, may be in violation of the state constitution.

Making matters more confounding, the county attorney seemed to agree that the Honovich ranch was a farm, met the classifications for farming in Putnam County, but that the county wanted the right to deny them protection.

Essentially saying, Ridge Ranch is a real farm, but not real enough for Putnam County to protect through the Agricultural District.

The court questioned whether or not that violated the New York State constitution’s protected right to farm.

Judge Grossman acknowledged the unfortunate timing of the hearing — controversially right in the middle of the county’s open enrollment period for Agricultural District inclusion — and said he didn’t want “to shoot from the hip.” Still, he recognized that a swift ruling is in everyone’s best interest. A decision could come as soon as Monday.

Warmly,

Brett Yarris, Candidate for Putnam County Legislator, District 5

Carmel Hamlet • Lake Carmel • Sparrow Ridge • Hill and Dale • Fairways

YarrisForUs.com
“People Over Party. Neighbors Over Noise”